When everyone wants the entire pie

Yeah right

Active member
Regular
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
1,267
Kin
4💸
Kumi
-6💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Let’s say every country is now for itself. Erase all treaties and start over. Everyone will want the entire pie. Until, you know, they have to compromise. Which leads everyone back to where, pre-trump era.

Am I wrong? Enlighten me anti globalists.

And with this kind of thinking, how long until the United States breaks apart because the states adopt the “me first” ideology.
 

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Not going to happen since no nation possesses all the resources necessary to have the entire pie. Cooperation will always take place at some level to facilitate the movement of goods and services.

I'm pro free market and free trade but everybody's focusing on the wrong issues. The reason you have the trade problems are because of the banking system, fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, governments ability to borrow money in the name of their citizens for socialism and military spending which are expensive. All of this leads to devaluation of fiat which in turn leads to inflation.

The only way to overcome this is if countires return to sound money(instant level playing field) which will restrict governments and empower the people. Most of the laws need to be abolished, making things (insurance) mandatory(mears the insurers don't need to compete for your money) needs to go and there needs to be less restrictions/regulations on businesses entering a market(competition).

Globalism is flawed in it's current form and can't work due to governments and democracy. And some the reasons for it I've mentioned above.
 

Yeah right

Active member
Regular
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
1,267
Kin
4💸
Kumi
-6💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
When you say return to sound money, how can smaller countries compete? Can you give a small explaination with examples where it would benefit everyone between both small and large countries.


Or are we saying, play with what you got and suck it up if you don’t have a lot.
 

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
When you say return to sound money, how can smaller countries compete? Can you give a small explaination with examples where it would benefit everyone between both small and large countries.


Or are we saying, play with what you got and suck it up if you don’t have a lot.
Compete for what exactly? Sound money flows from one place to another and is cyclical. Once a place(country doesn't have it) they start to produce products to sell to acquire it. Those that have an overabundance of it spend said money to acquire the products and the smaller country is enriched. The cycle then reverses and continues that way back and forth indefinitely. Under this system you can't have a huge government, since the flow of money is ever changing, you won't be able to run socialist projects, bailouts won't exist, no country could ever develop or sustain a massive military therfore hegemony won't exist. And if the world runs on sound money any country that tries to break away from it(sound money) to try and become hegemonic would collapse.
 

Yeah right

Active member
Regular
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
1,267
Kin
4💸
Kumi
-6💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Compete for what exactly? Sound money flows from one place to another and is cyclical. Once a place(country doesn't have it) they start to produce products to sell to acquire it. Those that have an overabundance of it spend said money to acquire the products and the smaller country is enriched. The cycle then reverses and continues that way back and forth indefinitely. Under this system you can't have a huge government, since the flow of money is ever changing, you won't be able to run socialist projects, bailouts won't exist, no country could ever develop or sustain a massive military therfore hegemony won't exist. And if the world runs on sound money any country that tries to break away from it(sound money) to try and become hegemonic would collapse.
Give example of a country that this worked. If it’s all theoretical, then it’s no better than communism.

Pick a country and strip government laws. Then build from there how it could help itself without succumbing to individuals taking advantage of the entire country.
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Shoes made in America, Sold in America (example):
Consumer Price: $100
Cost of Manufacture: $70
Cost to retailer: $90 (shipping).

Profit of manufacturer: $20
Profit of retailer: $10

Employee wages in factories typically constitute middle-class to upper-middle-class pay scales. Well above poverty level.

==========

Shoes made in China, sold in U.S.
Cost to consumer: $85
Cost to manufacture: $10
Cost to retailer: $65

Profit to manufacturer: $55
Profit to retailer :$20
Less cost to Consumer:$15

Chinese labor typically consists of low class urban populations defining poverty level. Improving to some degree, but only mildly.

Question: Where does the $55 of the Chinese manufactured shoes go? It doesn't go to labor. It may go back into investment in the country - but it's rather obvious that the great disparity between Chinese and American economies allows for far greater profit margins to be had on the same or inferior product. While the consumer saves 15% of their pay, the companies see at least double the profit.

In an economy experiencing healthy competition, profit margins are typically around 5%, with very lucrative markets or optimum running businesses around 10%. This will vary somewhat by industry and time of year as operational overhead meets varied product sales - but overall, a 10% profit margin is extremely good on the whole while a 5% is what most businesses operate around. Competition keeps profit margins from growing excessively.

So, let's analyze how "free trade" and "globalism" has impacted the respective societies.

China has a limited manufacturing capability. While it is rapidly expanding, consider that their infrastructure is being continually driven to its limit and that there are enormous amounts of smog and waste concerns stemming from China. Consider, also, things like the fact that the Chinese have internally gimmicked their economy to present artificially low costs of steel and aluminum - two very energy intensive industries, which - in America, were primarily driven by hydro-electric plants and nuclear reactors. China, powering these systems with coal and poor environmental standards, is creating massive amounts of pollution for their people in order to service American consumer demand.

Consider this aspect, as well. Chinese consumers are being pitted against American consumers for the destination of retail products. When the Chinese consumer enters into competition with the American consumer - it's absolutely no contest. The American consumer clobbers the bejeezus out of the Chinese consumer. Products which could still turn a profit domestically are sold to American consumers for an order of magnitude greater profit.

This means that, rather than Chinese people 'voting with their dollar' on what companies to support for their labor and environmental practices, as well as other aspects of Chinese society - Americans, greatly disconnected from these issues, vote simply on price. Or, more accurately, accountants arbitrate which products to stock on the store shelves from the amalgamation of the Chinese industrial backdrop.

Consider what happens when "America first" happens.

The American consumer pays around 15% more for their products (rough estimate) relative to what the store sells them Chinese products for. American industry begins to return - steel foundries come back, are expanded, etc. Primary ore smelt of aluminum and other metal ores comes back online. NET GLOBAL SUPPLY OF THESE RESOURCES INCREASE.
Do the Chinese factories stop producing things? Certainly not. While some may shift their business model around to account for less insane profits - they can still sell to the 1.x billion Chinese consumers right in their own back yard fairly well. Consumer demand in China outstrips current manufacturing capacity by far. The domestic economy of China ultimately improves as consumer products improve quality of life and local consumer interests begin to shape the relative industries. "China first" for Chinese would see them opt to reward companies with favorable employment practices with their business. Manufacturing capacity ends up going toward what the Chinese want their factories to build, rather than simply what services American consumer demand.

There is no reason, with the capabilities we've had developed for the past 50 years, why any nation should be unable to feed, clothe, and provide for many of its own interests. There may be a few exceptions to this in case of extreme local resource scarcity (or lack of key resources needed for these capabilities) - but the way things currently stand, the Chinese are being used as a slave labor source for the American consumer - who is in turn being used as a wealth transfer vehicle to the institutions and individuals who own the Chinese manufacturing giants.

It should come, then, as no surprise that certain elements of global governments, many of them with a net worth many hundreds of times their own annual salary (how does that happen for public servants?), would then come to the hastened defense of this arrangement. Not only do they do this at the expense of their own citizens and their own nations' economic capability, they do this while simultaneously attempting to fuel public outrage against the concept of meritorious pay/income and small business owners.
 

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Give example of a country that this worked. If it’s all theoretical, then it’s no better than communism.

Pick a country and strip government laws. Then build from there how it could help itself without succumbing to individuals taking advantage of the entire country.
What're you talking about the old world used to work on sound money. You should read a little bit of history, trade was fair and balanced. As for laws then most of the laws are nonsense, it's just a way for the government to try and police everything and fine/steal from people. BTW a few individuals currently take advantage under this modern law made system, they use lobbying to get laws passed to guarantee their profits by interfering with competition etc.
 
Top